Peter Sinclair's New Video Skewers Heartland's Offensive "Murderers, Tyrants and Madmen" Billboard Campaign

Peter Sinclair, the creator of the “Climate Crock of the Week” series, has a new video posted at the Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media documenting just how out of touch with reality the Heartland Institute's recent offensive Unabomber billboard campaign is. Featuring the calm and insightful comments of Margaret Thatcher, Sinclair shows the stupidity of Heartland's claim that all of us who acknowledge climate change science are “murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”

Watch Sinclair's piece, part of Yale Forum's “This Is Not Cool” series:



Excellent video by Peter Sinclair.

Well, Thatcher certainly was a murderer and a tyrant, but does that mean people like Stephen Hawking and Isaac Asimov were madmen? lol

Heartland’s childish guilt by association tactics are appalling.

Am I the only one who thinks it would be funny to recaption the Hitler tirade to something about Joe Bast getting mad at his directors about this whole faisco?

“Joe, people are mad about the bill boards.”

Pointing to the map… “We put the bill boards here here and here.”

Joe, “That shouldn’t be a problem.”

“But they say we’re crazy.”

Joe, “They always say we’re crazy.”

“But Joe, GM has said they are pulling support.”

Joe, “Anyone not a director, please leave the room.”

…. you can see where that would lead into the tirade…  Maybe have one of the generals mention that Margaret thatcher also understood Climate Science, and insinuating she was a murder and tyrant was perhaps not wise.

Joe, “I like tea!” “and Kittens!”  “Why do they think I’m so bad?!?”

Maybe end on a happy note with Pfizer supporting them…

Great video, conservative partisan denier blogs (WUWT, Nova, Hill, Audit, Depot)  avoid at all costs mentioning people like Thatcher, or Merkel, or the UK & NZ conservatives.

I’ts a dirty little secret they would rather their readers didn’t know about and its deafening silence anytime you mention it to them. I can’t count the amount of times I’ve mentioned it to deniers only to hear crickets shortly after.

It hurts their cortex and creates instant brain fog. It stuns them and leaves them disorientated for a short period. It’s supposed to be a liberal conspiracy agenda, so how come conservatives are involved?

The only possibilities could be:

A) AGW is in fact true


B) They are actually progressive parties in disguise and have succumbed to the allure of the hoax involving every major scientific institute, many of the worlds greatest minds, the majority of climate scientists in the relevant field and nature itself. Only fossil fuel companies and the people they pay have been spared the soylent green and can think straight.

To make the brain fog all consuming, Peter Sinclair could have also added comments from Angela Merkel (Ger), John Key (N.Z), David Cameron (U.K), Nikolas Sarkozy (Fr) to name a few conservative leaders.


Watched the whole video and there is nothing new at all except for a bit of Heartland bashing at the beginning and at the ending. (?)

It seems that all the pro AGW sites have doubled down on their repetition of the generic warmist mantras over the last few months with Joe Romm’s Climate Progress leading the way.

Even Real Climate, the blog supposedly run by ‘real’ scientist has degenerated to taking pot shots at the likes of Steve McIntyre and WUWT. (They didn’t used to stoop quite that low!)

So, did I miss something somewhere recently that has brought all this on? It smacks of a last ditch effort, in many ways, almost like they are trying to influence the elections or something.

What gives?


As always you do miss the point. Heartland implies the Iron Lady is a murder\tyrant\madman.  Instead of playing the role of a plutocrat sycophant, maybe you should listen to some conservatives for a change.

I think I know what gives…    I do notice that the absolute BS heaving crap from your anti-heroes.

I actually think the ‘point’ is to use the Heartland incident (or any other excuse) to trot out the same old AGW party line for the gazillionth time.

I’m still not seeing the ‘conservative’ angle on this either (?) Are you trying to say that since Margaret Thatcher was a conservative that it somehow makes her message more convincing to the non-believer conservatives? 

My honest opinion was that it was actually a fairly decent video for repeateating the mantra, as these things go, but it went completely off the reservation when the creator decided to include Hansen’s recent “…equal to 400,000 Hiroshima bombs daily” crap. That guy is doing more damage than good to the ‘cause’ with his outlandish statements, worse than Al Gore ever did, and I beleive the movement will suffer because of it.

Just my opinion, take or leave it.


I use logic and understanding to make my decisions.

But I love how you use words like ‘believer’, ‘mantra’, and ‘cause’…

Yet, when asked why you don’t use science or facts in your decision, you can’t offer anything.  Mike watts who graduated from high school told me so. History is full of people like you and it does not look upon them favorably.

You’re a joke.  A duped, plutocrat sycophant.  You are unable to think for yourself.   What would Winston Churchill call you… a Quisling..


“A word Norwegians are not very proud of having given to the world: it derives from Vidkun Quisling (1887-1945), a Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. He established his name as a synonym for “traitor”, someone who collaborates with the invaders of his country, especially by serving in a puppet government.
It is, arguably, the worst and most grave insult a Norwegian can throw at another.”

I hereby dub you, Chas “Quisling” Rasper.

As usual, Oilman, you resort to name calling and adhom. This is what people do when they don’t have any logical arguments to support their position and feel threatened by others who won’t bend to what they see as a “settled” argument.

It’s become apparent over the years that I’ve been following the AGW craze that there are far fewer critical thinkers on your side of the fence. Do some soul searching for once, you might find some interesting reasons for your blind allegiance to the ‘cause’ my friend.

If that is name calling, tough beans. It’s the truth.

Cheers from Chas!

“ to trot out the same old AGW party line for the gazillionth time.”

What party is that Chas?

“I’m still not seeing the ‘conservative’ angle on this either (?) Are you trying to say that since Margaret Thatcher was a conservative that it somehow makes her message more convincing to the non-believer conservatives? “

No, it’s to show that not only does a former prime minister agree with AGW, but it was a very conservative prime minister. Like Chancellor Angela Merkel, like former president Nickolas Sarkozy, like prime minister David Cameron, like prime minister John Key.

Because one of the major themes that many deniers believe in and conservative blogs like WUWT,Hill,Nova, Depot, Audit push, is that it’s a liberal/progressive manufactured conspiracy.


“Even Real Climate, the blog supposedly run by ‘real’ scientist has degenerated to taking pot shots at the likes of Steve McIntyre and WUWT

Links please.

“ It smacks of a last ditch effort”

I’ve been hearing, last ditch effort, games up, shows over etc etc for about 10 years now Chas. Don’t you guys ever get tired of saying and believing that?

Have you got a ball park figure of when it’s all over Chas?

Speaking of last ditch… did you notice how they all of a sudden, on mass, changed their stance from “The World isn’t warming.” to “The world IS warming, but maybe its not so bad.” emulating their hero Monkton.

I’ve noticed that liars frequently change arguments and never stick to facts or points.  This is because they don’t have any. The idea is to sew confusion in the opposition.  FUD (Fear Uncertainty, Doubt)

I witnessed this tactic in first person when a building proposal was made in my neighbourhood.  The opposition would make claims, and as I began to ask questions about said claims, there was a new claim made.  So you never really got to finish or understand a point.  It was really a big BS shield.

Opposition to building plans is successful if there is indeed something meaty to back it up.  i.e. This is in violation of building code because of ‘this’… repeat.

BS Shields always fold although it may take a while.

Mann summed it up best by saying that the reason the climate change deniers attacked the scientists was because they had no science to back them up.  (So shoot the messengers.)  I find that funny in itself because there are about 30,000 more of them, but hey… you tried to nail one guy and failed.    Bully for the Quislings!

“Speaking of last ditch… did you notice how they all of a sudden, on mass, changed their stance from “The World isn’t warming.” to “The world IS warming, but maybe its not so bad.” emulating their hero Monkton.

That seems to be the ones that appear on this blog. It’s phase 4 of the climate change denial process.

1) Climate change isn’t happening

This point of view has all but completely disappeared in the face of an overwhelming body of scientific evidence to the contrary. These are the “flat Earthers” of the climate change debate, and it can be difficult to know whether to feel anger or extreme sympathy towards them.

2) Climate change is happening, but it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles

Harder for the layman to refute when presented with the largely obvious fact that our home planet has cycled through several ice ages over the millenia, but a huge body of scientific evidence points to a human signature in the types of changes we are currently experiencing.

3) Climate change is happening, it may well be due to human activity, but it’s generally beneficial

“So what if sub-Saharan Africa fries and Bangladesh goes under? The frozen wastes of Siberia will become the new bread-basket of the world!” It’s incredible to think that otherwise reasonable people are advocating a planetary-scale experiment – with human civilisation at the centre – in which we would knowingly create conditions that have not existed since hundreds of thousands of years before homo sapiens first walked the Earth. (Modern humans are understood to have appeared around 150,000-200,000 years ago, while atmospheric GHGconcentrations are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.)

4) Climate change is happening, it’s probably due to human activity, but it’s not going to be as bad as the computer models suggest

This is a relatively new one, and it’s quite sophisticated because it is really difficult to refute. The basic argument is that computer-based projections of the climate sensitivity to growing GHG concentrations have been over-stated, and that we can continue to dig stuff out of the ground and set it on fire with impunity. This point of view was expressed by Pat Michaels in last week’sFinancial Times.

5) Climate change is happening, it is caused by human activity, it’s a really bad thing, but there’s very little we can do about it and there are lots of other bad things we should attack first

Bjoern Lomborg has virtually trade-marked this position. It’s very clever because it casts those who would advocate for monumental efforts to embrace a truly sustainable model of human development as well-meaning but ultimately misguided. However, it falls over because unless we do successfully tackle climate change, the future of human civilisation as we know it hangs in the balance, and an unimaginably difficult existence awaits billions.

I’m currently debating deniers on another site and I would say 90% of them are at point 0.25, let alone point 1) .

They pretty much run through the climate has changed before and no warming after  1998, or it’s the models, or it’s the sun virtually every post.


They switched from 1 to 4 in about 6 months.  Skeptical Science has also picked up on this shift.

I would like to reiterate why they are forced to changed their stance.  La Nina is ending and we have completed the low end of the 11 year solar cycle.  (Despite all that we have a lot of extremely hot years during that time.)

Earth is going to be cooking in short order.  I expect that we’ll have another earth busting temperature year this year or the next.  (I was running my Air Conditioner last month.  Usually we use our furnaces in winter.)

“Superb summary, Phil. I hope you don’t mind if I steal it and copy it into my notes for when I have debates with deniers.”

No problem, it’s not mine, but any ammunition we share is a good thing ;)

This is another one of my favouites from a few years ago. I think we have all run into these types.

Hello world. It’s your friendly neighbourhood denialist here. Look, we need to talk. I think we got off on the wrong foot. You’ve got me all wrong. I’m really an open-minded guy. All I’m asking for is evidence of your AGW claims. Surely that’s not too much to ask?

And please note, that when I say evidence, I mean:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…

3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.

See? I’m a reasonable guy. I’m perfectly open to being convinced by real evidence — you know, the kind that doesn’t rely on scientific instruments, or corrected data, or computers, or results recorded by other scientists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’m sure you’d agree that any evidence which meets my criteria would be extraordinary indeed.

And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I apply all these rules to myself. For example, I have perfectly good evidence that the ETS will destroy the economy. I haven’t relied on any measurements, or projections, or the advice of economists in making this prediction. Therefore my evidence for this prediction of economic doom is water-tight. (On a related note, how can you predict the climate next decade when you can’t predict the weather next week? And did you know I can predict economic doom from the ETS next year, even though I can’t predict the stock market tomorrow?)

Before I go, here are some corollaries that devolve from the above 4 rules:

A) Any previous errors in climate science are automatic proof that new data is also wrong. For example, if you produce results which show a reduction in ice coverage, or a warming of ocean temperatures, all I have to do is shout ‘Hockey Stick!’ and the new data is instantly dispelled.

B) So, before I will accept your new data, it must retrospectively correct any errors in past data, and erase them from the space-time continuum as though they never occurred. Furthermore, if you do manage to perform this feat, your data will be invalid because corrected data is disqualified under rule #2.

C) Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite and a liar and a fraud who jets around the world and has a big house and eats puppies for breakfast. And will you please stop the ad hominem attacks on Ian Plimer?

D) Will somebody, please, somewhere, anywhere, address the science in Ian Plimer’s book? I mean, surely that’s not too much to ask? By the way, anybody whoaddresses the science in Ian Plimer’s book is just a nit-picker who hasn’t addressed the main issue.

E) Please, spare me your conspiracy theories. It’s not my fault that AGW is a giant hoax perpetrated by Big Green to take over the world in a socialist plot. I’m just trying to uncover the truth here, with the assistance of a lot of commentators, media personalities, corporate executives and hired scientists who just happen to share similar political views to my own.

F) Your position is based on religious faith, not on the science. I can tell because you pay attention to the scientific instruments, the corrected data, the computer models and the writings of published scientists, instead of what I know, deep in my heart to be the truth: that AGW is a giant hoax and a fraud.

G) If you ever refuse to debate with me, that is proof that your position is untenable, you’re frightened of the truth and you don’t have the evidence. And, by the way, when will Burt Newton respond publicly to the claims that he’s a trans-gender vampire who was regenerated in a vat from a single hair of Vlad the Impaler? His silence on this issue is telling…


I’m so glad we could have this chat. I’m sure if we can just conduct this discussion using the rules and corollaries above, it will be an enlightening and fruitful enterprise that is well worth the time and effort of everybody involved.

I look forward to having this debate, at every opportunity, on every forum, on every website, from now until the end of time.

Yours truly,